Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb
Name Veracity of the page. The subject's published works have never been credited to Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb Lawhead, in fact she has only ever been known professionally (which includes writing) as Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb, and has never used the name Lipscomb Lawhead, and certainly doesn't now due to the impending divorce. Thank you.Celebrity1234 (talk) 07:25, May 27, 2014 (UTC) Wedding The link to Love My Dress is not a valid reference, and in fact beyond that first page you will see that everything has been deleted at the subject's request.Celebrity1234 (talk) 07:30, May 27, 2014 (UTC) I will yet again remove the reference to written work being credited to Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb Lawhead as this has never been the case. If the person who keeps adding it in can show a reference, please do so, there is no reference shown at present - that is, believe, becaue it does not exist. Therefore this information is untrue.Celebrity1234 (talk) 11:58, June 4, 2014 (UTC) :As we have an edit war going on here, I've done a little digging and added two confirmed references that show use of the "Lipscomb Lawhead" name, from stories related to her on her old school website. That should be sufficient proof for anyone that the name has been used. If this edit war continues, the page will be locked to prevent ANY further edits, and those involved in the edit war WILL be blocked from editing. Is that clear? Dcba-25 (talk) 00:00, June 5, 2014 (UTC) :Perfectly clear, but as Wikipedia found these references to be irrelevant I think you are wrong. Schools always use married names, whether they are used by the subject or not. Nowhere else will you find the married name used however much you dig. However, as Celebrity Wikja (nothing to do with Wikipedia and far inferior) is unimportant you can be bossy about edit wars as much as you like. Report what is not true if that makes you happy.Celebrity1234 (talk) 16:58, June 6, 2014 (UTC) ::Don't be cheeky to the Admin! Wikipedia and the cabal of self-important and self-appointed "Wikipedians" that dominate it find many things "unimportant", even when others think it is important or interesting, and refuse to accept many references that professional academics would accept as valid. Due to your insulting attitude towards both me as admin and this wiki, I'm placing you on a final warning - Continue with this attitude and you will be blocked from editing. Dcba-25 (talk) 00:04, June 7, 2014 (UTC) Having recently encountered edit warring on Lipscomb's Wikipedia article and read through the conflicts on the talk page and its archives, this 'Celebrity1234' is her mother, Marguerite, who expressed her opinions with very similar de haut en bas attitude and contempt for the 'lesser beings' who'd bothered to produce her daughter's article- she was being wholly unreasonable with regard for what she wanted removed/ would permit to be included there, and apparently tried the same thing here. This aside from the fact she'd created a comprehensive user page for herself complete with minute detail regarding her career, which then she deleted in a fit of pique as 'not anybody's business'. Dcba-25- I have a good deal more relevant information on Lipscomb, with sources, should you care to include it here. Veras11375 (talk) 13:10, January 26, 2019 (UTC) ::Thanks for the offer. Sadly it's an all too common situation on Wikipedia. Edit protections temporarily released. Dcba-25 (talk) 19:25, January 26, 2019 (UTC) Thanks; I'll make the edit and if anything needs changing/ removing/ restructuring or anything else, just say the word. Veras11375 (talk) 16:54, January 27, 2019 (UTC) ::Good edit. Thanks for the input. I've now changed the protection back again, just in case. Dcba-25 (talk) 19:50, January 28, 2019 (UTC)